Reflection: Week Fifteen

The end of the semester has finally arrived! As our world politics seminar comes to a close, I am left with conflicted emotions. While I am excited to launch into my group’s spring research thesis, I know I will miss the open discussion model offered in world politics. I have truly enjoyed the process of sorting out and grappling with political issues out loud with my classmates, Gunperi, and Professor Jackson. Lively debate always presents me with an opportunity to deepen my understanding of the complexity of international affairs.

My group and topic choice for the spring research thesis was directly affected by my positive experience with lively debate in world politics this semester. In fact, I decided to work with Christian, Toby, and Gabe because of the breadth of opinions represented in the group. Take Christian for example. While Christian and I certainly hold divergent opinions on important political issues, we have a similar appreciation of pragmatic analysis. I am truly looking forward to lively discussions on the implications of using private military companies as non-state actors in modern warfare.

While I will miss discussions in world politics, I am ready to move on to analyzing both theory and application for a single issue. So if you have any interesting articles or professional journals on PMCs or the evolving state of 21^st century warfare, send it my way!

Reflection: Week Fourteen

Thanksgiving break was supposed to be my oasis; my refuge from nights reading over international development policy, questioning justice systems, and conjugating obscure verbs in foreign languages. In high school, I spent most of my time wishing I could be out of my small town and in the nation’s capital with the politicos and coffee shop revolutionaries. Towards the end of November, all I wanted was family football games, my sad excuse for a car, and some apple pie.

Nevertheless, I somehow found myself in a rather contentious political debate or “discussion” over the Thanksgiving table with my uncle. The debate was sparked when my uncle learned about my intentions to study abroad in Istanbul. He then proceeded to inform my family around him of the militant Islamic movement taking over secular Turkey. According to him, this corresponded to the Muslim plan to re-populate rapidly and take over the Earth. As I was starting to eat my apple pie, I winced in my seat. No politics. I promised myself, no politics. I just wanted to enjoy my apple pie. However, as the assertions of “truth” became grander and grander, I was unable to stop myself from intervening. This launched me into an hour discussion over Islam, Judeo-Christian prophecies, and Zionism.

As my uncle and I debated events in the Middle East, our perceptions of reality and ways of thinking collided. There was no way for me to convince him of the facts when his world surrounded the literal interpretation of the Bible. My facts meant nothing to him, just as the literal translation of the biblical prophesies did not merit truth in my eyes. As I edged away from the conversation, recognizing that nothing could be gained, I smiled at the irony of the discussion. It seems cross-cultural encounters, similar to the conflict between the colonizers and the Native Americans, can be found at the dinner table on a Thanksgiving holiday centuries later.

Reflection: Week Thirteen

WARNING: Spoiler Alert and Harry Potter geek out.

In light of the premiere of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, I wanted to dedicate my weekly reflection to exploring the Harry Potter series and the politics of the marginalized. Growing up with the Harry Potter series, I never recognized the moral lessons and political commentary that could be drawn from the characters and plot of J.K. Rowling’s fantasy creation. Like the books of the wonderful Dr. Seuss, the Harry Potter series informed my moral and ethical development as a child without conscious recognition. This Tuesday, I attended Professor Jackson’s lecture on politics and popular culture, which prompted me to explore this idea further.

In the film representation and the book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pays specific attention to the vindication of two characters, Hermione and Dobby the House Elf. As Professor Jackson mentioned in the lecture on Tuesday, Hermione serves as a powerful symbol for meritocracy. As a “mud blood” (both wizard and muggle), Hermione was not born with the skill or family history that set most wizards up for success. However, her work ethic, perseverance, and intelligence allow her to become a brilliant wizard. Her true value is revealed in the last book when she plays a key role in finding the horcruxes and is recognized by Bellatrix Lestrange as a formidable threat. In this way, Hermione is an exceptionally strong female character that moves the plot by demonstrating the power of success through merit. Hermione’s successes are vindication for all the feminists out there that lament the limited female archetypes expressed in literature and society today.

The second powerful representative for the marginalized in the Harry Potter series is Dobby the House Elf. Dobby the House Elf plays a crucial role in the last book when he sacrifices his life to save Harry, Ron and Hermione from Lord Voldemort. In the last film, Dobby gets his moment of vindication when he exercises his newly granted freedom to refuse the orders of the Death Eaters and save his friends. Through this, Dobby saves specifically Hermione’s life before he dies from a spell cast by Bellatrix Lestrange. In this way, the lives of Dobby and Hermione become forever intertwined.

Hermione’s political advocacy on behalf of the marginalized House Elves eventually leads to her career in the Ministry of Magic. This relationship between two characters with their own oppression struggles poignantly demonstrates the power of the marginalized collectively. This concept is simply one of thousands of ethical and political concepts explored in the enduring magical world of J.K. Rowling’s brilliant conception.

Did the Spaniards conquer the Aztecs “by means of signs”?

In The Conquest of America, Todorov introduces an interesting evaluation of the historical encounter between the Spaniards and Aztecs as a clash of signs. Instead of emphasizing the advantage of hard power capability or “firearms and horses”, Todorov directs attention to the advantage of manipulating communication. By providing a thorough analysis of signs and interpretation in Aztec and Spanish culture, Todorov is effective in unearthing the true clash of realities that lies beneath the surface of the “cultural iceberg” as I mentioned in class on Monday.

Todorov proves this notion of “victory by signs” through a historical exposé on how the Spaniards learned to manipulate certain beliefs in Aztec culture to their advantage. At the beginning, the encounter was a messy entanglement of misinterpretation of signs. For example, Montezuma lowering head in front of Cortes symbolized refusal to speak for the Aztec community but was interpreted as surrender by the Spaniards. However, as the encounters progressed, Cortes and the Spaniards learned to use the Aztec’s blind faith in omens and soothsayers to deliver fated results and validate their God-like status. This manipulation also relates to a larger clash of realities presented by divergent views on cosmic order.

The complicating factor Todorov introduces in this confrontation analysis is the two entirely different realities constructed by the determinist Aztec believers and the free will individualist Spaniards. Aztecs believed that constant communication with the land and the gods validated a determinist perspective on life. On Hola Olaam! Elana mention in her blog post on this question “because the natives on the Americas were so in tune with nature and the gods, a small bump would cause a shift.” To pick up on what she was alluding to, the Spaniards in many ways got the upper hand simply by means of philosophical view of life. The obsessive desire to create one’s own destiny drove the Spaniards in their conquest while submission to the determined cosmic world made the Aztecs complacent and easy targets for Spanish manipulability.

Todorov points to conscious manipulation of signs and a motivating philosophical view on life as two distinct Spanish advantages outside the typical weapons and power calculation. With a clear account of this historical encounter, Todorov makes a compelling case for the importance of signs, identity, philosophy, etc. in confrontation between two political and/or cultural entities. I look forward to seeing this constructivist notion played out through out the rest of the book!

Reflection: Week Twelve

The lab with the World Bank, class discussion on Thursday, and a research project in cross-cultural communication this week have forced me to really grapple with the concept of the “post-colonial world.” In political discussions, we talk a lot about “post” societies (post-9/11 society, post-Enlightenment society, etc.). However, there is simply no other comparable event that has truly re-structured the world like colonialism. The more I read post-colonial theorists and even alternative feminist theorists like Ann Tickner, I become convinced that the justice of the current international economic system is ironically enslaved to our past. If we want to make up for the mistakes of the Western World, we have a responsibility to encourage an alternative narrative of empowerment for developing regions of the world.

In our major simulation coming up, we will be debating international development policy. In reality, this ethical obligation or “Western guilt” in many ways provides the crux of institutions like the World Bank. It will be interesting to see how each party in the simulation (European Union, Venezuela, McDonalds, etc.) will reject or address this undeniable force present in all international development negotiations.

Is the economic success or failure of a state a fair outcome?

In examining the justice of a state’s economic success or failure, the microcosm of personal economic success or failure is an important starting point. While there is always the possibility of climbing the social ladder with some hard work and intelligence, the average citizen’s economic fate is determined by their family and environment. Human agency is often no match for lack of resources and forms of oppression. In many ways, the individuals that manage to stumble upon wealth or work their way up the labor chain are very much the exception, not the rule. And yet we often point at these exceptions and exclaim, “See! They did it, you should too.” The next step in that logic is then “If you are still poor, then you must have done something wrong.”

When applying this pathology to world politics, the individual “social ladder” becomes the process of international economic development. When we see emerging economic actors like India, we often point to their success and use them as shining examples of eventual economic justice for the developing world. In the article, “Inayatullah's argument about states having a right to wealth is predicated on the claim that states are unequally prepared for global economic competition.” The unequal preparation comes from two major factors that coincide with an individual’s lack of resources and contact with oppression. Considering the importance of natural resources and exports, a nation’s economic status is largely dependant on their ability to create industries like tourism if they lack natural industries. Because lack of natural resources is geographical, this nation’s economic status is in no way fair. More relevant to justice, however, is the link between colonialism and poverty. After all, economic stratification, illiteracy rates, and lack of industry can all be connected to the effects of European agents who colonized and exploited resources in a certain region. During the first Industrial Revolution, the major European actors actively suppressed industrialization in other parts of the world in fear of more competition. These colonized nations’ economic statuses are in no way fair.

Given that human agency, such as the exploitation of other’s resources, plays a large role in determining future economic success; recognition of the Western world’s responsibility to the developing world is key. However, recognition must be followed by action. Micro-financing and granting debt-relief are both important actions that need to be given more consideration for the creation of more economically just international system. As the Western world becomes more educated about the consequences of our actions in the past, we can become more conscious of the actions that need to be taken to ensure economic justice in the future.

Reflection: Week Eleven

In our fishbowl discussion on Thursday, I mused about the connection between wealth and the do-gooder lifestyle. This is a concept I have struggled with personally for a long time now. On the one hand, I have always held a certain amount of hostility towards wealth because of corruption and materialism. After all, it was Jesus that said, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” But on the other hand, it is precisely my family’s wealth that has allowed me to get a great private education and send me to American University to prepare me for public service. It is precisely my family’s wealth that will allow me to graduate debt-free and work for a poorly paying non-profit or public defense office. It is precisely my family’s wealth that allows me to buy pricey organic vegetarian food and eco-friendly merchandise. In other words, it is my wealth that allows me to pursue the do-gooder lifestyle and live my ideals.

This paradox has made me consider that it could be possible to foster this do-gooder lifestyle within the upper and middle classes in America. You can see this already with the hipster culture that is alive and well on AU campus. Hipsters, myself included, are often rather wealthy kids that shop at Whole Foods, relish in being cultured, wear eco-friendly clothing, etc. Is it possible that our generation will be able to better integrate wealth and this do-gooder lifestyle? I certainly hope that making causes like environmentalism and vegetarianism “cool” will go a long way in producing a more morally conscious upper middle class.

As with many concepts, this trend can be applied to the macro context of American politics. As our nation continues to be among the wealthiest countries in the world, we need to make sure we are using our wealth to tackle the social justice issues that are pervasive in society abroad and at home. “To whom much is given, much is expected.” I try to live my life according to this notion and I can only hope my country does too.

Reflection: Week Ten

While I was squeezing through the crowd on my way out of the National Mall on Saturday, my mind was marveling at the significance of The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. With the optimistic and celebratory crowds, it had felt eerily similar to Barack Obama’s inauguration. However, there was something distinctly different in the air that day. I have yet to identify the element.

A major purpose of the rally was to publicly recognize the true demographics of America. As Jon Stewart mentioned, when the political, religious, and ideological minorities monopolize the media, the voices of the moderate eighty percent are minimized. But for the day of the rally, "for one moment, the moderates will be the news." The comedic ways that Stewart and Colbert demonstrated this irony were pure genius. In Stewart’s speech, he poignantly reminded the crowds of the difference between healthy concern and irrational fear. At the end of Stewart’s quasi-serious or “sincere” speech, he said that he merely needed our presence to restore his sanity. However, I would argue that it did much more than restore our sense of sanity. The sheer number of diverse average “moderately concerned” Americans gathered on the National Mall to poke fun at ourselves is EXACTLY the image of America I want to be presented to the international community. Like Jon Stewart said, “We are living in hard times, not end times.” Our political rhetoric and our national image should reflect this reality. Given our class discussions on the relationship between irrational fear and national security, the significance of the Rally to Restore Sanity could go even further than sanity and affect Americans’ sense of security as well.

What is the next big national security threat after terrorism?

When asked to identify the next big national security threat after terrorism, I would propose that the issue of U.S. education and its lack of investment in science and mathematics looms as an insidious threat to the future of our security as a nation. In class on Monday, several variations of the definition of national security were invoked. When considering a more broad interpretation of the concept of national security, consistent with the Obama Administration’s 2009 national security agenda, it is important to look at the issue that will be most detrimental to our security in the long-term.

American national security and prosperity relies heavily on a steady trend of American scientific and technological innovations. New international challenges in the 21 century such as global warming and energy dependence will require creative solutions from citizens of the world. For the U.S. to maintain its global hegemonic power, our citizens must be at the forefront of this struggle with new science and fresh solutions. As stated in the 2009 White House National Security strategy, “American’s long-term leadership depends on educating and producing future scientists and innovators.” This is precisely why the Obama White House has invested in the STEM program (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) to encourage young Americans pursuing these fields of study.

The statistics on U.S. science and mathematics education are alarming. An international educational assessment in 2006 ranked U.S. students 21st out of 30 nations in science literacy and 25^th in math literacy. Students in other developed nations are very clearly outperforming American students in these fields. If we truly want to look towards future security and prosperity, America should be investing in science and mathematics education for the next generation who will inherit the new international threats of the century.

Reflection: Week Nine

This weekend I had the honor of attending the Interfaith Leadership Institute at the White House. This was truly a transformative experience for me. Through out the weekend, I couldn’t help but reflect on the close reciprocal relationship between national security and preserving our true American ideals.

I became heavily involved in interfaith youth service organizing in high school through my interest in Middle Eastern politics and U.S. foreign policy. Through studying terrorism tactics, I learned that these small non-state actors can compromise our national security largely because we allow them to divide our society. By planting horrifying, fear-inducing attacks, terrorists force national governments to react strongly by cracking down on individuals in this same marginalized group. Knowing that the government will react in this harsh manner, terrorists can then generate more sympathy for their cause and increase their recruitment pool. Through getting young Muslims, Jews, Christians and many other religious youth involved in high profile projects and fostering mutually beneficial relationships, we are seeking to change the narrative about religious division and anti-Islamic sentiment in America. In this way, we seek to strengthen our national security by refusing to allow our nation to compromise our principles and our long history of religious cooperation and multiculturalism.

With all the anti-Islamic and divisive religious rhetoric in the media lately, there is a serious need for an alternative narrative about not just religious toleration but religious cooperation in our generation. We need to start making the connections between these small movements and their ability to strengthen the security of our nation. Look out for an interfaith campaign coming your way in the next few months. The White House and the Obama administration has asked for our involvement, and I will be making sure that AU is one of the first campuses to answer this call to action.

What would a win look like in actual world politics?

After playing out various realist notions on the Risk board and writing my midterm paper in earnest defense of realist motivations, I can finally proclaim with out hesitation that I don’t believe self-interest alone should propel our country’s foreign policy agenda. When asked what would winning look like in actual world politics, I could easily spit out a convincing argument for total U.S. hegemony supported by the lovely simplistic world of realist IR theory. But that would be a disingenuous and unfortunate attempt to sidestep the challenge of advocating the more complicated liberal and constructivist IR theories. These theories are not as black and white largely because, much to the chagrin of ardent realists out there, the political world is a particularly opaque shade of grey.

If I was to rely on my own objective sheet based on my ideals and political values, “winning” would be a Risk board that accurately portrays where I think the international political world will be in a half or full century from now. Naturally, the Risk board would have a significant presence by the United States (perhaps similar to the blue team) in all areas of the world. However, this is not just because I want to sustain U.S. hegemony in the world for my own security. More importantly, this large presence is important because of the effectiveness of our nation’s democratic ideals and values. “Democratic peace liberal” theorists accurately suggest that democracies are inherently more predisposed to peaceful intentions. However, this large U.S. presence would be balanced by the rising power of the European Union in international relations. The presence of two relatively friendly large state or inter-state actors on the Risk board would be a growing “win” as both hegemonic actors share responsibility for the larger global issues of the 21^st century, namely confronting climate change, quelling terrorism by violent non-state actors, and achieving economic stability.

This ideal Risk board would be what I personally consider a win. Call me naïve but I truly think that, given good progressive leadership, the world of international relations will be heading in this direction in the next fifty to hundred years.

Reflection: Week Eight

I was thrilled to attend the opera Salome this week at the Kennedy Center largely because I wanted to enjoy something other than politics for a day. When your life is bombarded with politic theory and general election projections, melodramatic theater is sometimes just what the doctor ordered. Ironically, even with all the majestic costumes, haunting music, and larger-than-life performances, I could not seem to shake my political analysis lenses for a night. I appreciated the pure art to be sure, but found myself fixated on one theme throughout the entire production.

Oh Salome, where do I begin with you? You are surely a show designed largely on shock value and the manifestation of hyperbole on stage. When the opera began, I instantly recognized the story of Herodias and her daughter from the Bible. I was immediately transported back in time to my small Catholic high school, where I sat in the back of my theology class rolling my eyes at this story in the Bible. In my opinion, the story of Salome and John the Baptist is a perfect example of religion and society’s preoccupation with the classic "Eve and the apple" projection. In literature, plays, and folklore, woman are often cast as the incarnation of evil, either as uncontrollably passionate young maidens or manipulative temptresses. Salome just takes the sick and twisted nature of women to a whole other level. In the opera, Salome and her mother are portrayed as manipulative and selfish even in their best moments. While Herodias and Salome are cast in this light, the pedophilic King Herod who makes sexual advances on Salome comes out looking more like a buffoon than anything else. John the Baptist of course is the saint that righteously refuses the persistent advances of Salome.

I thoroughly enjoyed the melodramatic night of watching Salome rolling around the floor with John the Baptist’s bloody severed head. It certainly cured my political stupor even if my feminist tendencies surfaced from time to time. After all the tragedy of Salome will always look better on stage at the Kennedy Center than from my shabby old theology classroom back in Frederick, Maryland.

Reflection: Week Seven

I was surprised by the challenge presented by the complexities of the auto-manufacturing debate simulation this Thursday. I am admittedly not very well versed in economics, especially concerning auto-manufacturing. So I enjoyed the opportunity to research something completely outside my usual political interests. After studying the issues involved in this domestic v. foreign auto-manufacturing debate, the issue’s relevance to IR theory became increasingly apparent to me. Before participating in this simulation, I would have never made this connection.

At the end of the simulation, the professor standing in as president (I am blanking on his name even though he was fantastic) made a comment that really resonated with me. He mentioned that sometimes students become frustrated with studying strictly IR theory at the beginning of their SIS major because they come in wanting to know the answers to the War in Afghanistan, the economic crisis, and global warming immediately. However, he explained, given that theory is the underlying theme seen throughout all these political issues, a complex understanding of different IR theories is essential to our progress as IR students. As a pragmatist that could study case studies and facts all day, I considered this a really helpful reminder.

Needless to say, I am very excited to move into the next section of World Politics that deals with application of IR theory. However, the recent simulation acted as an important reminder of the omnipresence of IR theory in every nook and cranny of our political discussions.

Reflection: Week Six

In class today, we engaged in a fascinating discussion concerning alternative views of power in world politics, focusing specifically on the potential of marginalized groups. After studying IR theories (liberalism, realism, and constructivism) we have to challenge the assumption of the nation-state as the only power actor in world politics. Professor Jackson asked us to examine when exactly the marginalized become a threat to the power of the nation-state. Upon reflecting, I believe a demonstration of ability to organize and growth are the key factors that make a marginalized group powerful enough to upset the national order. We see this best exemplified in the danger posed by terrorist groups, infamous non-state actors, and the new power they hold over the U.S. and other European countries.

In the 21^st century we will see a substantial rise in power from not just new nation-state actors (i.e. developing countries like India) but also the emergence of non-state actors. Are we prepared as an IR scholarly community to adapt and adjust our traditional theories to include these new actors? Or are these theories so fluid that they can incorporate the relations of non-state actors as well?

I am not sure if anyone today noticed that the organization of the class directly mirrored the content of our discussion. At the beginning of class, Professor Jackson walked into the room and “empowered one of the silent” by handing the light saber to Julie and Dayna. By mixing up the old order, the class was now required to listen to the voices and interjections of Julie and Dayna instead of Professor Jackson. The class still functioned efficiently and allowed for a freer exchange of ideas among equals. Constructivists and other scholars could argue that this small class discussion could serve as a microcosm of the interjection of new power into world politics as it stands today.

From Global to Intergalactic Politics

Politics is a game where short-term decisions often take precedence over long-term foresight. Because of this, we are constantly underprepared when confronted with entirely new global challenges. Establishing an ambassador for extraterrestrial diplomacy would be an easy but bold step in the United Nation’s progressive agenda.

So I’ll admit, I feel ridiculous when asserting such a suggestion. I am sure the majority of politicians in the UN shy away from this platform because it can easily be attacked for its absurdity. However, some brave souls in the UN have indeed proposed the election of a “Space Ambassador for Extraterrestrial Contact Affairs” in a recent General Assembly meeting in New York. The UN could easily direct someone from the already functioning “Office for Outer Space Affairs” to this appointment. Because this office would be entirely contingent on future contact, it would not require a budget or personnel yet. The important thing is the gesture. By appointing a specialized contact ambassador, the United Nation’s would send a clear two-fold message. The UN is serious about foreseeing potential global challenges in the 21^st century and the UN does not shy away from potential extraterrestrial contact.

When developments have not occurred yet, people laugh off progressive proposals such as this one as absurd and wasteful. When these developments do in fact occur, people are then left unprepared and blame each other for lack of foresight. If extraterrestrials do contact the Earth, we need the world to have a system in place to support the historic ambassador that will lead the way into a new era of “intergalactic” politics.

Reflection: Week Five

One of the important themes discussed in constructivist theory is this notion of internal v. external identity. This is an issue that I have happened to discuss in both World Politics and Cross Cultural Communication this week. Identity development is complex in that it depends not just on internal perception but the perception of “the other.” This tension between the two images is best exemplified by the concept of Lady Gaga as a nation-state mentioned in class on Monday. In my most recent blog post, I stretched this notion to apply to so-called antagonistic states, North Korea and Iran. It’s up to you guys to tell me whether I justified that parallel or not.

We often hear the phrase “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” I think this notion is extremely applicable to the identity struggle mentioned in constructivist theory. When we develop our own identity as an individual, community, or entire nation, we must define ourselves internally but be conscious of the way we are perceived through out the world. This idea was debated in my Cross Cultural Communication class in a discussion over American culture this week. If the world views us as a largely Christian nation, can we really pat ourselves on the back for being religiously tolerant and diverse? Is this a misperception on their part or ours?

This identity struggle is what truly complicates international relations on a large scale. Constructivism discusses how nations assume certain reactions from another nation based on their perceived identity in the global order. But can we accurately predict reactions from a state if their own identity is inconsistent with the caricature we have developed for them? It is interesting to see the similarities when this identity struggle is applied to individuals on the micro level and entire nations on the macro level.

North Korea and Iran: Lady Gaga Nation-States?

This week is the first time I have been legitimately stumped by a blog question. If Lady Gaga was a nation-state, what would the international system look like? Perhaps the difficulty of this question lies in its abstract nature. It leaves quasi-pragmatists like myself at a loss. So in keeping with the true form of a pragmatist, I am going to apply this notion to reality and audaciously suggest that Lady Gaga states actually exist in the world order today.

If we define a Lady Gaga nation-state as a government that deliberately flaunts conventions to provoke reaction, we could consider North Korea and Iran as manifestations of this distinct way of relating to the international community. Out of protest against certain “Western” practices and ideals, both Iran and North Korea refuse to fully participate in the accepted global order. Their outrageous behavior transforms them into larger-than-life icons for their respective ideologies. In many ways, this gets at the complicated issue of identity. Does it really matter how you define your identity, if other persons or entities don’t recognize this? Take the microcosm of Lady Gaga in popular culture. Lady Gaga views herself as a calculated activist for the GBLT community and thus deliberately produces material that grabs attention and flaunts convention. While Lady Gaga has a substantial fan base, many Americans see her material as outrageous and automatically dismiss it. Many people don’t even recognize her as a GLBT activist. While she may hold popular power, no one in the government would ask her to come to the negotiation table. Now, apply this to the macrocosm of world politics. If you simplify the identity of North Korea and Iran, you essentially get this same identity struggle. While North Korea and Iran view themselves internally as championing resistance to the Western capitalistic status quo, what do we view them as? Crazy. Unpredictable. Not worth consulting.

It is interesting, however, to examine how North Korea and Iran still hold so much weight in an international system that they refuse to fully participate in. Just like the popular power Lady Gaga holds with her following of “Little Monsters,” Iran and North Korea still have their bargaining chips, most importantly nuclear weapons. When this type of power enters the equation, the struggle between internal identity and external identity becomes largely inconsequential. Nevertheless, it makes for a tantalizing debate when a Lady Gaga metaphor is invoked!

Reflection: Week Four

In our debate over the benefits and drawbacks of the election process this week, I couldn’t help coming back to an interesting debate demo round I watched one of the first days of Debate Society at AU. I had wanted to bring it up in class but it never quite fit into the trajectory of our conversation. The theoretical proposition related directly to this notion of populism vs. elitism, or more easily understood as the “people are dumb” debate.

In the debate round, parliamentary team proposed the existence of a magical machine that could read a person’s reasoning capabilities, knowledge of current events, and basic political intelligence. The team proposed that every American citizen should have to pass this magical intelligence screening in order to vote in elections. Benefits of this would include more informed election results, less pandering and smear campaigns by political candidates, and more healthy debate come election time. The opposition argued that this violated the values of democracy and disproportionately affected the nation’s poor. They argued that the common low-income citizen who is barely holding together two jobs and a family does not have time to keep up on current events and may be less educated. Both sides presented enormously valid points and by the end of the debate my head was spinning.

While this proposition of a magical screening machine seems silly at first, the resulting debate is a very basic dispute over the very essential ideals of democracy. The populist v. elitist debate continues to pull me in opposite directions intellectually. After all, the average citizen simply does not have the time or knowledge base to understand the complexities of tax structure, history of foreign countries in the Middle East, or economic recovery theories. And in this country, we don’t expect them too. The politicians and their staff are the ones with experience, education, and time to study and sift through these complicated decisions. Because of this, what tends to happen is politicians make the informed decisions and then try to sell it to the public as if it was their idea.

Throughout the week, I will be continuing to grapple with this debate that really gets at the core of the purpose of elections in our democratic system.

The Value of Elections Lies in Potential

In class on Monday, we expended a lot of energy discussing the negative ways elections function in a managerial liberal state. We debated over whether elections make us more active or more passive in our political participation. We criticized the illusion of the citizen’s power while money and bureaucrats truly make the decisions. Through following politics over the years, it has become increasingly evident that all of this is true. However, the election system in the United States is by far the best political participation system seen in large nation-states today. With this in mind, I would find it difficult to live under a different form of government without the election process.

As discussed in The Nation State, the election system was developed in response to other not so effective outlets for political participation. For example, in European states popular sovereignty or the “general will” of the people was expressed through riots, demonstrations, and other equally volatile manifestations. While the passion of these citizens has been romanticized over the years, events like the French Revolution show us that excessive political organizing can lead to chaos in the state. In order to ensure more stability, the election system developed as a ritual or routine way for each citizen to chose who they want to represent their interests in government. While this might not be considered a “hands on” approach, it certainly gives our country a unique sense of consistency in our political activities.

Voting in elections is a gift we often take for granted as a society. While admittedly our participation is limited, citizens still have the responsibility to be well-informed before stepping into the voting booth. If we can generate a more active voting culture in America, I believe many of these issues with the election system will improve. While the system is by no means perfect, the value of the election system lies in its potential. Democracies with regular elections leave room for change, progress, and a constant opportunity for citizens to collectively influence their government when they so chose.

Reflection: Week Three

This week’s lab at the Newseum on Wednesday reminded me of the powerful ways media and journalism shape political and social life in America. Since I live in Maryland, this was my fifth visit to my favorite museum. I remain in awe each time.

The September 11^th exhibit at the Newseum gives an interesting perspective on how media reacted to the terrorist attacks. The most poignant component of the exhibit is the wall of 9/12 headlines. Newspapers exclaimed everything from “Apocalypse”, “Terror”, to the particularly strange San Francisco Chronicle headline “Bastards!” These headlines serve as an excellent snapshot into the emotionally volatile time directly after the attacks. Now, on the nine year anniversary of 9/11, tensions still run high over what these terrorist attacks mean for our national community. The so-called “Ground Zero mosque” and “Burn the Quran Day” have dominated headlines in the Washington Post and New York Times. These controversies demonstrate that the bitterness and anger over 9/11 is still present and often misdirected at the entire religion of Islam instead of the Al Qaeda terrorists. In his national address today, President Obama reiterated to the country that the U.S. is not at war with Islam but Al Qaeda, a group that perverts the Muslim religion.

Reflecting on the meaning of 9/11 on the national anniversary, I couldn’t help but consider how this event affects the U.S.’s role as the major hegemony in the world. What are the consequences of this growing anti-Muslim sentiment or “Islamophobia” in our nation? Doesn’t this seem to diminish our reputation as a benevolent world power in the world? While 9/11 is first and foremost a day of remembrance for the lives lost in this tragedy, it is also a day to reflect on what our values are as a nation and how we can work together to protect them.